campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Category policy/Approval Vote
How many categories can the software handle? If this policy is adopted I plan to categorize abortion under "death issues", "types of capital punishment", "cruel and unusual punishment", "actions that displease God", "actions that please Satan", "uses for coat hangers", "stubs", "things that Democrats love", "sins", "immorality", "atrocities", "barbarism issues", "savagery issues", "human rights", "pages to delete", and "crime". I hope that won't be a problem. Under this policy "more categories are better than fewer" and categories are "not considered a formal endorsement". So as long as the categories are based on "arguments presented in the article" (which I will make sure of) "a viewpoint's disagreement should not prevent another's categorization from being represented, and an additional category should be added to reflect the opposing viewpoint rather than removing an existing categorization." So my categories will stay, and we will probably get another dozen or so to "reflect the opposing viewpoint". Does anybody know how many categories the software will support? Would 800 categories be too many for one article? Lou franklin 01:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :The policy says "more categories are generally better than fewer", and most of those violate the seventh paragraph of the policy. You may have a point, though, that the policy should be amended to specifically address the creation of redundant categories and those with only one member. --whosawhatsis? 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC) ::The problem with this policy isn't redundant categories nor categories with only one member. The problem is that the policy fundamentally misconstrues what a category is. There is nothing in the seventh paragraph that would prevent me from adding any of those categories, and once this policy passes I fully intend to add each and every one of them. Lou franklin 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :::It doesn't "misconstrue what a category is", it defines what a category is. It's unreasonable to expect categories to be NPOV when the information they're categorizing is not. --whosawhatsis? 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I don't agree. I think that having hundreds of categories will make the site unwieldy. But if that's the majority here wants, and the software supports it, we'll go forward with it. I've got ideas for another dozen categories that abortion could go under. By the time the policy is adopted I should have a couple hundred ready to go. Lou franklin 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Lou, I think I'll invest in Bayer AG stock. I might as well get some of my money back... Chadlupkes 20:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC) It looks like this policy is going to pass so I have prepared several hundred new categories for the abortion article and a few hundred for some of other articles. Some of my favorite new categories for "abortion" are "bad alternatives to adoption", "amoral medical procedures", "methods of ending human life", "ethical equivalents of a Nazi death camp", "decisions that women will regret later", "procedures that should be restricted" and "procedures that should be grounds for imprisonment". Nobody seems to know how many categories this wiki will support but if this policy passes we're going to find out. Lou franklin 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC) :Lou, I will consider such an action vandalism and an attack against the integrity of Campaigns Wikia. 3RR will apply as approved. Don't do this. If you want to be involved on this site, don't consciously do something that will get you banned. Chadlupkes 02:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ::On what basis would you "consider such an action vandalism"? You can't ban me for following policy. Lou franklin 02:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC) :::Nobody seems to know how many categories this wiki will support but if this policy passes we're going to find out. - from your statement above. :::Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Campaigns Wikia. - from Campaigns Wikia:Vandalism. :::Vandalism is the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure, a symbol or information against the will of the owner/governing body. In the context of an online community project, it is a deliberate attempt to damage the usefulness of content for others. - from w:Vandalism :::Instead of trying to find a solution that brings people together, you are deliberately and intentionally planning an action that will be guaranteed to piss people off and might even cause system problems. You know that what you propose is a bad solution, but you're planning on doing it anyway. This tells me that you have and had no intention to work constructively with anyone else on this site, and that things will go your way or you will be a royal pain until it does. If you're not interested in having people come together to discuss different viewpoints and come to agreement on some things while agreeing to disagree on other things, then you will not be welcome on this wikia site. These actions are what got you banned from Wikipedia, remember. In spite of that history, I have assumed good faith about your edits up to now. Adding random categories like you suggest would be an act of vengance against the adoption of policies that you don't agree with, not an attempt to find a workable solution. Chadlupkes 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ::::You know very well that I did "attempt to find a workable solution" and did "try to find a solution that brings people together". While you were busy throwing elections, I was drafting a fair category policy as an alternative to this one that did not promote hundreds of biased categories. ::::I am not "attempting to compromise the integrity of Campaigns Wikia" in any way and I have done nothing "against the will of the owner/governing body". As a matter of fact I have abided by Wikia's policies to the very letter. ::::A full two weeks before this vote was scheduled I alerted everybody to the implications of this policy. Two weeks was plenty of time to "find a solution that brings people together" had the community been willing. ::::You are barking up the wrong tree. You can't set a policy and then ban people for following it. Lou franklin 04:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC) :::::"... an article containing arguments that something is or should become a civil right is a civil rights issue, and belongs in the Category:Civil rights, but the category should not be added as an argument for its status as such." :::::The previous is from the proposed CatP. I disagree in placing an article in a category on the grounds that it contains arguments that are similar. If I follow the link Category:Republicans I expect to see a list of republicans. If I follow the link Category:Civil rights, I expect to see a list of (recognized of legalized) civil rights. Categories should be neutral, that is, based on facts, and not arguments. :::::That said, I would add that vandalism will not be tolerated. If I see a user place the article Abortion under ::::::"death issues", "types of capital punishment", "cruel and unusual punishment", "actions that displease God", "actions that please Satan", "uses for coat hangers", "stubs", "things that Democrats love", "sins", "immorality", "atrocities", "barbarism issues", "savagery issues", "human rights", "pages to delete", and "crime" :::::I will block the user responsible for that inmediately. Was he following the policy? Is it vandalism? Well, our definition of vandalism is open for interpretation, and I choose to interpret it as vandalism. Also, if that user has a previous record of being blocked for vandalism, I will block him with expiry time: infinite. Consider yourself warned. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::Warn away, but you can't block users for following written policy. If the policy states that "additional category should be added to reflect the opposing viewpoint rather than removing an existing categorization" you cannot ban users for obeying, and you can't even remove the categories. ::::::As you say, if we had a neutral category policy then you could block a user for categorizing abortion under "sins", but under this policy you cannot. ::::::The minute this policy becomes official the categories go in. Lou franklin 04:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::"you can't block users"... Watch me. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC) This has gone on long enough It's time for some drastic action here. Lou I know you disapprove of this policy. I trust that Chad and Who won't be tossing obviously biased categories on pages, and you have no real reason to do so either. I have already removed your changes to Same-sex marriage, and I sincerely hope that it will not happen again. Extreme action to elicit a response is not helpful to anyone, especially yourself. I will support a block of you if you continue to add the extremely biased categories to pages. You know this is wrong, I know this is wrong, and others know it is wrong. It does nothing but make other people think that you are a highly biased vandal. I know you are quite intelligent and capable of putting forth a powerful argument. This "category flooding" idea is neither of them. :You had no right to remove my changes. My changes conformed to the policy. Your removal of those changes is in direct violation of the policy. :You may be an admin but you are not King. You must abide by the policies of this wiki just like everybody else. We would all like to ignore the policies and make our own rules as we go, but that's not how it works. The reason that we write policies is so everybody knows what rules must be followed. I'm not sure what made you think that you are above the rules, but I assure you that you are not. You must follow the rules like everybody else. :Campaigns Wikia:Category policy states that "an additional category should be added to reflect the opposing viewpoint rather than removing an existing categorization". If you have a problem with any of the categories you may add more categories to add balance. You may not remove categories. You have deliberately violated the rules of this site. You had no right to do so and should be banned immediately. Lou franklin 01:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::It is against the policy according to your skewed interpretation. All of the admins (and everyone else, for that matter) seem to agree that that interpretation is incorrect, and I have proposed an amendment to attempt to clear up this confusion. --whosawhatsis? 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::I have directly quoted the policy. There is nothing "skewed" about it. Lou franklin 12:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::And you have ignored other quotes from the policy that modify the parts you quoted. --whosawhatsis? 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Chad and Whosawhatsis I know you think Lou is unwilling to contribute positively to this wiki, but he has and, if permitted, will again. He obviously objects to this category policy quite strongly, as evidenced by his prior remarks of which I am sure you are familiar. Active communication is a much better way than to respond to threats with more threats. :I would like nothing more. I know he is capable, I just don't know about the willing part. He has made some minor additions to some of the Massachusetts pages, but not much else besides basically being unwilling to allow any point of view that he doesn't agree with. It has gotten to the point where I want to throw the very discussion of issues at all under the bus if all it's going to do is put us all at each other's throats. I'm absolutely sick of it. And we've been trying to have active constructive communication since we started. But the answer is always and without fail that it's his way or no way. I hope this works, but I have no confidence that it will. We've been trying too long without success. I've had enough. Chadlupkes 01:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::I used to have your hope Jim. Sorry, I'm with Chad. I've had enough. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::You must abide by the policies of this wiki just like everybody else. Whether you've "had enough" is not the issue. I have followed policies to a T. Lou franklin 01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Everyone What we need is dialogue. I suggest (rather strongly) that this category policy stay unofficial until any suitable amendments can be made to it, so that it is satisfactory to everyone. I also suggest that other policies have similar possibilities for amendments as they are being voted upon, so that people can endorse either the primary versions that are visible or the versions with alterations. The primary version (e.g. Campaigns Wikia:Category policy) should remain unchanged throughout the vote, but the one with changes can be made to replace it if the results of the vote require it. We need to solve this problem and move on. Continual strife is taking the focus off the actual elections and issues and putting it only on the bureaucracy behind the scenes. Please be civil and respect both yourselves and your fellow editors. Together, we can work through this issue, but separate there will only be anger and hard feelings. Jim 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :I don't know how useful that would be. There was quite a large problem about the SSMcat vote being declared void. We can't pause all activity, waiting for Lou to give his blessing. I'll remind everyone that I also voted against the policy. I plan to write an ammendment, not childishly add any categories I can. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::Until that proposal becomes policy, reinsert the categories and block the user who removed them. Lou franklin 02:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)